On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 10:13:12PM -0800, Shardul Deo wrote:
> Let me know if you have any questions (or if there is something better
> that I can use instead),
Why You have not considered taking one of existing wire format
specifications [1, 2, 3]? Having field of service description is nice
but why not to add it in [1] thus making compatible implementation in
single-service environments? 

Currently I'm looking for nice wire format to implement lightweight
(read "without twisted") protobuf rpc for python and found that still
there are no compatible implementations :(


                Pavel

PS Sorry for long delay :)

--
[1] 
http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-rpc/source/browse/trunk/protocol/protobufrpc.proto
[2] https://launchpad.net/txprotobuf/
[3] http://protorpc.likbilen.com/Protorpcdocprotobuf.html (currently down)

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to